FRONTIERS OF ZOOLOGYDale A. Drinnon has been a researcher in the field of Cryptozoology for the past 30+ years and has corresponded with Bernard Heuvelmans and Ivan T. Sanderson. He has a degree in Anthropology from Indiana University and is a freelance artist and writer. Motto: "I would rather be right and entirely alone than wrong in the company with all the rest of the world"--Ambroise Pare', "the father of modern surgery", in his refutation of fake unicorn horns.

Sunday, 30 September 2012

Matt Moneymaker On "Camper" Footage

If anyone knows anything about Bigfoot, that would be BFRO President/Finding
Bigfoot star Matt Moneymaker. We all know from Finding Bigfoot that he
can recognize a Bigfoot from a mile away. The "Camper"
video was sent to Moneymaker via Twitter
and this is what he tweeted back:

Saturday, September 29, 2012

According to nearly
everyone who's involved with the Elbe Trackway investigation in WA, the tracks
are probably faked. Initial opinions were mixed, but it is now without a doubt
an elaborate hoax. The most disturbing part about this hoax was the suspicious
email noticed that was first sent to Finding Bigfoot TV star Cliff Barackman,
who was filming an episode for season 4. Due to his busy schedule, Barackman was
unable to respond to the email, so instead, the witness decided to send another
email out-- this time, to the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization (BFRO)
about a significant line of possible Bigfoot tracks near Barackman's home town
in Portland, OR.

From Bigfoot Evidence on Thursday, a report of a very Neanderthal-like individual. Florida is one place where you get this specifically (and I'm thinking Texas is another) but the Neanderthal-type reports are scattered all over North America. They are overshadowed by reports of their larger cousins, but their very specificness makes them exciting to hear about.

Thursday, September 27, 2012

A man in Florida just
submitted a report to the BFRO after watching Finding Bigfoot and wrote
about an encounter he had with Bigfoot while frogging the day after Thanksgiving
(November 23, 1990). According to the report, the man's life changed forever
when he locked eyes with a Neanderthal-looking man slinging mud at him in his
airboat.Here's the raw report written by the
witness:

OBSERVED: I was flipping threw the
channels last week watching some late night TV when I saw a program called
Finding Bigfoot.It brought me back to the day my mind about that giant changed
for me.I only told my mom what I saw.It really changed my life about the
unknown.I was running my airboat on the upper St. Johns River doing what I like
to do best frog gigging on a Friday night. It wasnt the first time I was out on
the river at night,I use to run the north and south parts of the river all the
time.I still do just at night I make sure I have a running buddy with me.Anyway
I was coming up on the oak's.The oaks are located right next to Duda's
property.Just a wee south of Lake Winder. I figured I would pull up into the
oakhead and drink a few cups of joe before I started to gig.Out of the corner of
my eye I saw something bolt into the cabbage palms.I figured it to be a hog,I
really did not know what it was the last thing on my mind was it could of been
the big guy.Anyway I ran up on dry ground about 15 yards spun my boat around so
it was pointed toward the river and shut it down.I just poured a cup of joe when
I herd something about 10 yard behind me.It sounded like it was wrestling with a
cabbage palm.Or maybe rolling around in a bunch of palms.Then out of know where
I herd a thump right next to me boat.I looked but did not see anything then
again I herd it behind my boat then something hit my rudders I turned on my head
lamp and saw mud on my rudders I then saw a bunch of mud fly over me and hit my
bow I shined my light in the direction of where it was coming from and I saw his
face.I lost all feeling in my body I just about passed out I was lost I didnt
know what to do.I was in total shock.I just about peed my pants I was so
scared.I never in my natural born life moved so fast to crank my boat and got
the heck out of there.I almost sank my boat when I hit the river. I just went
north knowing I would be in the lake.I was scared to drive home so I parked in
the middle of Lake Winder and took a few sips of drink to calm my nerves and try
to talk my self out of what I saw,I stayed there untill first light.When I got
home I went and seen my mom and had to tell her what I saw. I told her the story
because it scared me so.I am a man and I am tuff but that scared the living heck
out of me.I figured I should share my story just like others are on that tv
show.

Follow-up investigation report by BFRO Investigator R.
Monteith:

I
spoke with the gentleman for several hours. Although this encounter happened in
1990, he remembers every detail. He claims this encounter changed his life
forever. The gentleman has worked at the space center for over 20 years and has
gone frogging every Friday night on his airboat even longer. On November 23,
1990, around midnight, he took his airboat to a familiar oak hammock north of
Lake Washington and south of Lake Winder on the St. Johns River.

He
backed his airboat in as usual, to prevent any other boaters that might come by
from blocking him in. He turned off the engine, and while still sitting in his
chair, poured himself a coffee. Within a minute’s time, he heard two “plops”
that came from the front of his boat. Then he heard a “plop” hit the rudder
behind him. He turned on his headlamp to investigate the noise. He noticed mud
on the rudder. As he was trying to figure out where the mud came from, another
clump of mud went sailing over his head, going through his light beam and
hitting the rudder. He quickly turned to see who was throwing mud, and from
behind a group of palmettos, standing 30 feet from him was a huge, dark-haired
“Neanderthal” staring at him.

They “locked eyes,” looking at each other
for several seconds. The witness claims he was so frightened he couldn’t move.
He thought how sometimes his engine takes a few times to fire, and he was
concerned he wouldn’t be able to get away fast enough. To this day, he doesn’t
remember starting the engine, but does remember that once it was started, he
“torpedoed” out so fast, he swamped the boat and almost sunk it.

He drove
the boat to the wider part of the river, up to the next lake where he remained
in the middle until sunrise. He didn’t want to go back down the narrow part of
the river for fear the creature might jump on the boat, or grab him as he sped
by. For several hours he remained in the middle of the lake, shaking, and trying
to talk himself out of what he had just witnessed.

When telling his
story, the gentleman was overcome with emotion, and had to stop and begin
several times. I cannot emphasize how passionately credible this man is in
retelling this encounter some 20 years later.

Although, he only saw the
creature for several seconds, he was able to give a detailed description of what
he saw. What he saw, ‘is burned in my memory forever;”

-It was approx. 8+
feet tall. (He sits 10 feet up in his chair, and he was just slightly looking
down to it.)

-There wasn’t much hair
around the checks or eyes, but it seemed to have an 8 -10 inch
beard.

-The head was not conical, but very large and oval.

-Facial
skin was not black, but darker than tan, and “leathery looking,
ruff-like.”

-There was a brow ridge.

-The hair was not tangled or
matted.

- It had black eyes, and thin lips with a large mouth.

The
witness continues to go out on Friday nights, but will not return to this
particular place. He has agreed to take me out to this oak hammock during the
day. I will update this report if need be.

Photo taken on this hammock
in the swamp, to give you an idea of what the trees/woods look like in the
area.

The St. Johns River
Management Area that runs through three counties is remote and marshy, with many
cypress and oak hammocks. Abundant wildlife exists here year round. Several BFRO
reports are currently being investigated in or around this management area.

Friday, 28 September 2012

Megumoowĕsoos are described as a bipedal humanoid about four-feet-tall and covered in reddish-brown hair is called an “albatwitch” (or apple-snitch) in Pennsylvania. The small, hairy creature might have been known to Native North American Indian tribes centuries before. In Algonquin legend, creatures called Megumoowĕsoos (MEG-um-OH-wee-SOOS) were described as “small hairy creatures who dwelt among the rocks and made such wonderful music on the flute that all who heard it were bewitched”. Legend maintained that “several megumoowesoos dwelling on the summits of high hills and mountains in the almost unexplored region around Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia.”

This looks once again as if it might be the small-reddish-haired native ape said to live in the Eastern United States, often compared to an orangutan and said to be the same as the Skunk Apes of Florida. The part about playing flute musuc which bewitches humans is found also in faeriy stories from Western Europe and is not directly connected to them in reports, at best it shows a connection in the Folklore between the two areas. I am simply running the material including the photograph as it came to me, I do not claim responsibilty for taking it or authorizing it as authentic. The originating site must take that responsibility.

And I agree: this is not what a Bigfoot SHOULD look like to me, but on the other hand it is a very good reproduction of an "Artist's Conception" of what a bigfoot looks like. I would therfore tend to side that sayys the supposed bigfoot shown is a suit or a model and thre video is a deliberate hoax.

New carnivore. Durrell’s Vontsira. Researchers from the Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust, the Natural History Museum, Nature Heritage and Conservation International discovered a new species of carnivore in Madagascar. This is the first discovery of a new carnivore in 24 years. This small creature weighs under 1 1/2 pounds and belongs to a family of carnivores only known to live in Madagascar. Unfortunately Durrell’s Vontsira (Salanoia durrelli), is also one of the most threatened carnivores in the world.

Madagascar is home to an abundance of plants and animals, 90% of its wildlife is found nowhere else on Earth. The island has been classified by Conservation International as a biodiversity hotspot. CI is one of the largest conservation organizations with more than 30 global offices, and more than 1,000 partners around the world.

Wednesday, 26 September 2012

"North American Wood Ape" as posted by "The Naturalist", probably not intended seriously

[There seems to be a Cryptid in Texas that is the exact equivalent of the Florida Skunk Ape as an ape. There is also one that is the exact equivalent of the more Neanderthal-like Skunk Ape. In this case the Texans are speaking of the more apelike kind.-DD]

By Daryl Colyer & Alton Higgins

In Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana, anecdotes about huge, hairy, apelike creatures said to dwell in the deep woods and, occasionally, near the peripheries of rural communities, have accumulated for centuries. Many of these accounts were related by highly reliable and trustworthy individuals, people who had nothing to gain by telling their stories.
Indeed, in many cases, these witnesses became the subjects of much ridicule, even among close friends and relatives. To the present day, most witnesses hesitate to share their incredible stories of seeing this strange, undocumented animal. Their reticence should come as no surprise given the treatment of the subject by the mass media and some mainstream scientists.
There are many skeptics; their concerns are legitimate. Skeptics demand to know why no skeletal remains have been found; they want to know why no hunters have killed one, or why no driver has collided with one on a secluded country highway. Would not a large primate, skeptics ask, leave an undeniable, discernable mark on the environment in perhaps the same manner as mountain gorillas (Gorilla gorilla beringei)? Such questions are not invalid. Expecting skeptics to accept the likelihood of such a species existing beneath our proverbial noses may be asking just a tad too much. Nevertheless, the body of anecdotal accounts and accompanying evidence seems to indicate just such a possibility.
Contrary to what some may assert, most hunters do not generally shoot at anything other than their intended game. While there are exceptions, most hunters will definitively identify their targets and normally just do not shoot at unknown or unidentified prey. That said, there have been a few scant reports of wood ape shootings; most were relayed through second hand sources. Further, most of those few reports that were related to shootings indicate that the shooters either missed or did not immediately bring the fleeing wood apes down.
Skeletal remains are rarely found of any common, large, wild animal, so it should not be surprising that the skeletal remains of a wood ape are not readily available. The acidic forest soils and muddy river bottoms found in the preferred habitat for the wood ape tend to work in tandem with scavengers to quickly eliminate the remains of deceased animals. Finding a cougar (Puma concolor) carcass as a result of a natural death would probably be most analogous to finding a wood ape carcass, although the most conservative estimates of cougar population densities most certainly are far greater than even the most liberal estimates of wood ape population densities.
There have been a few unsubstantiated reports of near misses of wood apes by drivers, and given the probability that many encounters go unreported, it is possible that a wood ape could have been hit and killed by a moving vehicle. However, realistically, given the probable rarity of these creatures along with their intelligence and caution, the odds of such an event occurring seem almost non-existent.
There are some discernable signs that possibly indicate the presence of wood apes (thus the noticeable effect on the environment), however, the signs are easily disregarded by someone unfamiliar with purported wood ape behavior. For example, there are numerous reports of wood apes breaking branches, trees, and saplings, and to a lesser degree, constructing nest-like structures.
Tree damage, possibly done for the purpose of marking trails or territory is discernable, but oftentimes hardly stands out among deadfall and ice or wind-broken trees. Most people would miss or casually dismiss such signs. It is unlikely that a typical wildlife biologist or anyone not knowledgeable on this subject, upon observing wood ape-related limb breaks, would ever suspect a wood ape as the culprit, even in the absence of any other readily apparent explanation. The characteristic twisting accompanying such breaks would appear to require enormous strength that can only be accomplished by something with hands. Nest-like structures, purportedly built by wood apes, have been found by researchers in areas of sightings.
Another contention often heard is that the thousands of credible reports from throughout North America are, in one way or another, the products of human imagination. The contention is that many of the witnesses are intentionally lying about what they encountered and are actually themselves the perpetrators of hoaxes, or the witnesses are simply mistaken and are misidentifying what they saw or heard. Or, as the argument goes, many of the witnesses are simply victims of practical jokes and/or hoaxes. All evidence aside, it may seem more plausible to consider that there actually is an undocumented animal that is prompting thousands of reports than it is to believe in an unrelated series of hoaxed sightings and misidentifications.
It should soon become evident to anyone who seriously and objectively delves into and studies the numerous credible sightings that many of the reports themselves are quite compelling. It is difficult to totally dismiss as fabrications all the reports that have accumulated from so many credible witnesses over so many decades.
However, the essence of the research presented here does not focus on the validity of any individual report, but on the body of reports as a whole in order to ascertain any correlations and patterns that may exist. When one impartially studies the sum total of all the reports it becomes evident that there do indeed seem to be correlations and patterns that could be representative of a living species.
Among these correlations, particularly in Texas, is the likelihood of sighting reports in areas with certain amounts of annual rainfall. The same pattern is also evident in the body of reports that originate in other states where there are divergent rainfall totals in different parts of each state, such as Oregon, Washington, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Montana, Colorado and California. (Conversely, in states with widespread abundant rainfall totals, such as Arkansas and Louisiana, a rainfall total/reported bigfoot encounters correlation is not evident). There is also a pattern of reported sightings along rivers, creeks or lakes. Reported sightings and human population densities seem to have some correlation, as does the distribution of alleged bigfoot sightings and areas viewed as suitable black bear habitat.
John Green, journalist, author and renowned wood ape researcher, first touched upon the association of reported wood ape or "sasquatch" sightings and annual rainfall totals in his 1978 book Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us. Though the book was written nearly thirty years ago, the passage of time has not diminished its relevance. On the contrary, the increase of credible reports since that time has served to further validate Green’s thesis. He determined that eighty percent of the reported sightings and alleged footprint finds in North America occurred in areas receiving more than seventeen inches of annual rainfall.

The darker counties are where the higher concentrations of credible reported encounters have occurred.

When this observation is applied to credible Texas reports and is represented on a map, discernable patterns seemingly indicative of a living species emerge. In Texas and Oklahoma, roughly ninety percent of the credible reports occur in areas that see at least thirty-five inches of rain per year, or in the eastern third of the state(s). Since the vast majority of Texas and Oklahoma reports are aligned with rainfall patterns, it is possible to dispute allegations of fabrication or mistaken identity. It is not rational to assume or propose that people living in areas with more than thirty-five inches of annual rainfall are more likely to submit a hoaxed report or misidentify what they saw than people living in areas with less than thirty-five inches of annual rainfall. While a few reports have originated in areas with lower amounts of rainfall, they appear to be sporadic and isolated, possibly due to a natural propensity of wildlife to use watercourses as travel routes; if the wood ape is a legitimate species, it makes perfect sense that it would also use watercourses as travel routes.

From west to east, annual rainfall totals increase to as high as 70 inches in extreme eastern Louisiana.

While portions of far western Texas and Oklahoma are certainly semi-arid, the eastern sections of both states receive abundant annual rainfall. These areas are heavily forested and feature an abundance of waterways and lakes; they are very much ecological clones of the two neighboring eastern states of the region, Arkansas and Louisiana.
The combined total amount of forestland in the four-state region equates to roughly 65,000,000 acres, or 100,000 square miles (the size of the state of Oregon). According to The Online Handbook of Texas, there are roughly 22,000,000 acres of forest in Texas alone; per the Arkansas Forestry Association, there are roughly 19,000,000 acres of forest in Arkansas; the Louisiana Forestry Association reports that there are 14,000,000 acres of forest in Louisiana; Oklahoma has approximately 10,000,000 acres of forest as indicated by the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry.

There are 65 million acres of forestland in the four-state region, which is about 100,000 square miles, or the size of the state of Oregon.

While the forestlands of Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana and Oklahoma may be somewhat more parceled, or discontinuous, than northwestern forests, it is obvious that they are enormous in scope and depth, contrary to the misperceptions of some. Wildlife biologist Dr. John Bindernagel, who visited the region in 2001 and 2002, was struck by the richness and scope of the region’s forests, which are predominantly mixed deciduous, as opposed to the largely coniferous forests of the Pacific Northwest. Dr. Bindernagel recognized the value and productivity of deciduous forests in terms of wildlife habitat and he pointed out that large species of mammals living in the southern forests would almost certainly require smaller home ranges than in northern coniferous forests.
Almost without exception, reported wood ape sightings occur near water. This is even true with the relatively few reports originating in the drier regions of Texas and Oklahoma, where wood apes are reportedly seen generally on or near waterways or lakes in thick brush or dense riparian vegetation. Most wildlife researchers and hunters would quickly reinforce the observation that many mammalian species often use rivers and creeks as travel routes. Since water is essential for the cycle of life, animals regularly congregate near or at least dwell primarily in areas featuring bodies of fresh water. Both Texas and Oklahoma have an abundance of rivers, creeks, swamps, reservoirs and lakes, particularly in their eastern regions. It is also reasonable for a large number of reported sightings to occur in or around swamps, river bottoms or bayous, since a reclusive, shy animal would find seclusion and sanctuary in such areas.
When a river basins map is viewed with an overlay of reported encounters and an annual rainfall overlay, it becomes evident that most alleged sightings have occurred along waterways and lakes and in areas with thirty-five inches or more of annual rainfall. Many reported sightings in Northeast Texas have occurred in the Red River Basin along the Sulphur River or Red River and/or their adjoining reservoirs or creeks. Many reported encounters have also occurred in the Red/Sulphur River watershed in southeastern Oklahoma, southwestern Arkansas and Northeast Texas. Similarly, the Sabine River Basin, extending from Southeast Texas into Northeast Texas has also generated quite a few reports. In Oklahoma, the Canadian River Basin is not without its share of reported encounters. In Southeast Texas, in what is called the Primitive Big Thicket (encompassing the Sam Houston National Forest and the Big Thicket National Preserve area), the Neches River Basin, Trinity River Basin and San Jacinto River Basin have had many reports through the years as well as in recent times. In fact, Southeast Texas is the most prolific area in Texas for reports of bigfoot sightings. Likewise in Oklahoma, the most prolific area for reported encounters is also in its southeastern region. It should come as no surprise that the southeastern regions in both Texas and Oklahoma also receive the highest amount of rainfall for both states, with totals as high as sixty inches per year in spots.
Although the East Texas river basins have generated far more reports, the Brazos, Colorado and Guadalupe basins have also had occasional reported sightings. These three basins average less than thirty-five inches of rainfall per year, but they typically have dense vegetation and trees in the riparian margins. Given that the vast majority of Texas and Oklahoma reports follows rainfall patterns and occurs along waterways, the notion that these reports are simply the result of the misidentification of known animals, wishful thinking, and/or deliberate fabrications seems flawed.
There is yet another interesting correlation with the distribution of these sighting reports. For the most part it appears that most reported sightings in the four-state region occur in counties with lower human population densities. There are a few exceptions. However, 100% of the sightings reported from counties with higher populations still occurred in areas that were along the peripheries of or outside of the realm of human development (such as in Montgomery County, Texas, in the Sam Houston National Forest, an area of consistent reports). Actually, suitable wildlife habitat often exists close to urban and suburban areas. That being said, reported sightings that have occurred on the edge of small towns and larger cities are by far the exceptions.
In fact, it seems that where human populations increase, reported wood ape sightings decrease. Where human populations decrease, reported ape sightings may increase. The reputed shyness of the wood ape is only further girded by this human population correlation. This observation is further enhanced by the inference from reports that wood apes are nocturnal, or at the very least, crepuscular. Not only do the reported sightings seem to suggest that wood apes live in areas of low human population densities, along waterways, and in areas of high annual rainfall, but they may be most active when humans are not, which is at night. The notion of fabrications and mistakes is unrealistic in light of these correlations.
While Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana have resident populations of black bears (Ursus americanus), there remains the question of whether or not the 12,000,000 acres of dense forest in East Texas can support even a small population of large omnivores such as the wood ape. After all, black bears no longer roam the Piney Woods of East Texas. But did black bears disappear from East Texas because of a shortage of suitable habitat? No, or so says the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. Biologists conducted a black bear habitat suitability study in four areas of East Texas: the Sulphur River Bottom (51,000 acres), the Big Thicket National Preserve (97,000 acres), the Middle Neches River Corridor (247,000 acres), and the Lower Neches River Corridor (312,000 acres). The purpose of the study was to determine the suitability of habitat in East Texas for the black bear, a large omnivorous mammal. The study is relevant because there may be a correlation between purported wood ape and suitable black bear habitat. If an area is suitable for a large omnivore such as the black bear, it seems reasonable to posit that it is just as likely to be suitable for a small population of omnivorous wood apes.
One part of the study dealt with food availability in summer and winter; all four areas scored very high. Biologists calculated a strong favorable rating for the availability of protection and concealment cover in all four areas. In the category of human/bear conflict zones, a less than favorable rating for the Big Thicket National Preserve was determined, but a moderately to strongly favorable rating was found for the other three areas.
Overall, the study indicated that the most suitable region for bears among the four study areas was the Middle Neches River Corridor, followed in order by the Lower Neches River Corridor, the Sulphur River Bottom, and the Big Thicket National Preserve. All four areas have had an abundance of bigfoot sighting reports.
Environmental suitability issues were also addressed by another group of scientists. While the curators of Chimp Haven in Northwest Louisiana probably do not spend too much time contemplating black bear habitat factors, they do devote much of their time discussing and evaluating primate habitat. According to their web site, Chimp Haven provides a permanent home for chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) retired from biomedical research, the entertainment industry, and those no longer wanted as pets. Their new sanctuary, presently under construction, is planned to accommodate 300 chimpanzees, animals which may be the closest relatives of wood apes. Due to its ecology and climate, Chimp Haven curators believe that Northwest Louisiana is ideal primate habitat. Western Louisiana and East Texas are virtually ecological clones. It should come as no surprise that Northwest Louisiana was selected as the new site of Chimp Haven’s operations, given what we believe about wood ape habitat.
In conclusion, several observations serve to dispel the notion that bigfoot sighting reports in Texas and Oklahoma are not the result of actual encounters. The reports, based on recent as well as older credible encounters, continue to accumulate and show no signs of abating. If one chooses to take the reports seriously and the apparent associated ecological patterns, as has been done in this paper, debates regarding the existence of this species are replaced by new issues such as those pertaining to ecology, distribution, behavior, and population densities.References

The Loch Ness Giant Salamander Blog By Steve Plambeck

I came across this blog the other day and I thought it was most interesting. I think that the author might have hit upon something and I am going to let him have his own say for the most part. I have but a couple of addiitions to make, and my comment on the blog appended at the end here. The first is that at the time the Loch Ness Monster was beginning to come into the news in 1933, local old-timers at Loch Ness were speaking of something which they called "A salamander" being the monster, and there was a report at one time that "the salamander" had been trapped in the locks of the Caledonian canal. The nextm of interest is that the creature(s) in the Gray photo have been compared to a Japanese giant salamander (Andrias) virtually from the start and then afterwards with some regularity.

Around Sunday noon on the date of November 12, 1933, while strolling home from
church, a local resident named Hugh Gray spotted something rise in the Loch,
thrashing its tail and making a considerable splashing about 100 yards out from
the spot where the river Foyers enters Loch Ness. Gray's sighting was only one
of many over the centuries, but what distinguishes it from all that came before
was that he was carrying a camera, and used it to take the first known
photograph of the animal. He took five pictures in total, unsure if any would
turn out amidst all the splashing and spray. One photo did turn out, and along
with Gray's story it was submitted to The Daily Record and Mail. The Daily
Record had the fortuitous presence of mind to submit the negative to several
experts, including Kodak, all of whom agreed there was no sign of any
tampering. Of course it would have been highly difficult in those pre-Photo
Shop days for Hugh Gray, a local aluminum company worker, to have engaged in
trick photography, but it is all the better for us that the provenance of the
original photograph and negative was being firmly established at this early
point, re-enforced in subsequent years by the findings of those researchers who
visited Gray. Interviewed over the years by the likes of Constance Whyte, Ted
Holiday, and Tim Dinsdale, Gray never waivered in the details of his story, and
must be considered a highly reliable and even reluctant witness.

The
Daily Record published the Gray Photo in December of 1933. It was quickly
picked up and repeated in The Daily Sketch, The Daily Telegraph, and newspapers
across the world. In modern terms, the story "went viral", and the modern,
press-driven era of "The Loch Ness Monster" and its nickname "Nessie" had
begun

HEADS
OR TAILS?

The various versions of the picture as published by
the press of the day can be found all over the Internet, and generally look no
better than this:

And it was from
reproductions like these, made from the original negative first being converted
to half-tones, and then
having had their contrast considerably tweeked upwards to darken and "solidify"
the images for newsprint publication -- processes which inevitably subtract all
fine detail -- that Loch Ness investigators have had to work for the past eight
decades. Back in the early nineties when I originally became interested in
seeing if I could work out the morphology of the Loch Ness animal for myself, I
put one of my first computers to work scanning images of the various photos from
books, another process which in itself can lead to further lost detail and the
introduction of visual artifacts that weren't part of the original photo. One
result was the reproduction of the Gray Photo from the Mackal book, found at the
very top of this article. The fact is that if you tweek and photo-shop any
photo enough, you might start seeing Labrador Retrievers in anything, including
the Mona Lisa. (That Gray photographed a dog is a ludicrous and lamentable idea
that itself went viral in the early days of popular Internet usage, and some
renditions of the Gray photo floating around appear further retouched to
deliberately bolster that ridiculous notion.)

Looking at these newsprint
and book reproductions leaves little wonder why Mackal wrote "There is no
apparent basis for determining which is front or back, and any such decisions
must depend largely on what preconceptions one may have." And yet there is
enticing detail in even these images. Coupled with Gray's testimony there can
be no doubt we are looking at an animate, living object. The part on the left
is the clearest element of the image, and caught in the act of undulating as
Hugh Gray described the tail to be doing. There's not one but two pointed,
fin-like structures arising from the top of this tail, if it's the tail, at the
point it meets the main body, but then these fins appear to diverge into
different directions -- which seemingly makes no sense. This particular mystery
is most evident in the higher contrast versions:

But if this is the
tail, then where is the neck and head? If one is working from the preconception
that there has to be a long neck, then perhaps this
is the neck, and perhaps those dorsal fins, if relaxed and
hanging, would account for the occasional reports of a mane? Following an
assumption this is the head and neck, then the head is small indeed, absolutely
miniscule in proportion to the overall size of the animal; it appears completely
undifferentiated from the "neck" here, although there may be a couple minute
features visible that could be eye slits or even little stalks (except that they
only appear at the highest contrast and when the image is taken from a book; on
this small scale they may only be artifacts of the printing
process).

Also, if this is the neck, then the tail (which must be quite
developed to serve as Nessie's means of reputed rapid propulsion) must be at the
right hand end of the object, but there's no sign of it; could it be flexed down
at an acute angle and fully below the waterline? Conversely, if this element in
the image detail above is actually the tail, then it's the neck bent acutely
below the waterline at the right end of the object; that might make some sense
if Nessie is floating on the surface dangling its neck below the waterline like
a fishing line intent on snagging prey. But if that were the case, all the
splashing and tail thrashing Gray reported seems counterproductive to sneaking
up on fish.

Other intriguing details in the total picture are the two
white dots along the waterline where one might expect appendages to be. F.W.
Holiday studied the Gray Photo intensely, was one of the interviewers of Hugh
Gray, and visited the spot from which the picture was taken. In The Great
Orm of Loch Ness (W.W. Norton and Co., 1968) he states his conviction these
are indeed the parapodia of the Loch Ness animal.

And here is pretty much
where further analysis of the Gray Photo was stalled. There wasn't enough
detail in any of these newsprint photos and their circulating reproductions to
answer these questions. Unfortunately whatever became of the original negative
is unknown. After nearly 80 years of study, not much more could be
said.

A BOMBSHELL

In 2011, Loch Ness
researcher and author Roland Watson wrote the definitive analysis of the Hugh
Gray Photo in his article The
Hugh Gray Photograph Revisited. It is published at his blog, and it is mandatory
reading for anyone interested in the Loch Ness animal, and the Hugh Gray photo
in particular. To quote Mr. Watson:

"It is best in these cases to get the most
original image and as luck would have it another print came into the hands of
Maurice Burton in the 1960s which were made from glass lantern slides in 1933
for E. Heron-Allen. Importantly, these contact positives were made from the
original negative and represent the best untouched picture of what Hugh Gray saw
that day."

Watson obtained this all-important picture, made from the
original negative, from the Fortean Picture Library. The full image used in Mr.
Watson's analysis may be viewed in his blog article mentioned and linked to
above. In commenting on Watson's analysis, Aleksandar T. Lovchanski furnishes
the information that Steuart Campbell deposited the glass lantern slide print
with the FPL after obtaining it from Burton. Therefore the provenance of the
Heron-Allen version is rather well established, stretching back to the original
negative. It is only regrettable that this more definitive version of the Gray
Photo was overlooked by so many researches for so long.

The Heron-Allen
image contains all the detail lost in the press reproductions and their
overwhelming contrast adjustments, and upon studying it Roland Watson made what
few would contest must be the most important discovery in Loch Ness research in
many years. He found the head! And it is on the right.

Having stared at
the Gray Photo in books, having scanned it, enlarged it, filtered it, sketched
it, and looked at it every way possible for about 40 years, I'm still a bit
thunderstruck by this revelation. But I am convinced that what Watson has
identified as the head is indeed just that: our only known picture of the head
of the unidentified species in Loch Ness.

At first this struck me as
creating more problems than it solved, as like many I took it that Nessie had a
long neck and a small head. While I never subscribed to the Plesiosaur theory,
I assumed that convergent evolution had resulted in an amphibian with an anatomy
that followed the long-necked, fish-chasing body plan of a Plesiosaur. Nature
does not discard proven templates, and it was a design that served many species
of aquatic reptiles quite well for millions of years. But that has not proven
to be the case in Loch Ness. The Gray Photo is hard evidence that Nessie has a
short neck, and a relatively large and fish-like head.

So swallowing my
pride (and abandoning a pet theory of my own, which I might detail in a later
post for nostalgia's sake) I set about having my own closer look at the
Heron-Allen image. After all, if I'd been overlooking the head for 40+ years,
the important question became: what else had I (and everyone else)
missed? If the details of the poor, over-contrasted press releases of the Gray
Photo had been so enticing, how much more might we learn from the Heron-Allen
version? It needs to be taken apart and put back together, a project I decided
to tackle soon after learning of Watson's find.

The first and most
important contribution I spotted is the reason for the title of this
post.

A BEAST WITH TWO
BACKS

There are not one, but two specimens of the Loch
Ness animal captured in Hugh Gray's photo. (For the best look at the
Heron-Allen image I again link you to an article by Roland Watson, The
Forensics of the Loch Ness Monster. You may click on his image there
for a full-sized zoom on the Heron-Allen image.)

There are two backs (or
dorsal lines) to follow if you trace your finger across the image from left to
right, with the clearest example of this being between the two bright water
sprays. You may note that the back of the topmost or further animal becomes the
top of the head Watson discovered. This animal, the one furthest away, is also
about one head's length ahead of the nearer animal, and the head of the nearer
animal is hidden in the spray.

If you are using an LCD monitor such as on
a laptop, start with the screen almost vertical and then slowly tilt it back
while viewing the Heron-Allen image -- that's how I first spotted the second
dorsal line. Below is a smaller version of the image onto which I've drawn an
overlay for comparison with the original. I use hyphenated lines in the two
places where spray obscures the dorsal line of the front-most animal, where the
head of the front-most animal is hidden behind spray, and where the anterior
appendage disappears below the waterline:

Let's examine,
from left to right, what is visible here but has not been previously noted or
explained by the high contrast press releases of the Gray Photo.

First is
the tail. Unlike Mackal, whom we quoted to begin this article, we now do
have a basis for identifying the leftmost part as the tail, because the head has
been identified by Watson on the right. The caudal fins (not fin) were
actually more evident in the high contrast prints. If you capture the image and
increase the contrast yourself, you can turn the Heron-Allen image into an exact
replica of the press version minus the scratches (another bit of proof we're
dealing with the original photo here.) Turning up the contrast does increase
some detail on the left side of the picture, like the caudal fins in my earlier
close-up, while simultaneously ruining details such as the head on the right
hand side. But now that we've identified two separate backs, the reason for the
mystery in my earlier look at the fins becomes evident: there are two apexes to
the "fin" because it's actually two fins belonging to two separate tails, one
behind and slightly ahead of the other. What may even be the tip of the second
tail is visible protruding just left of the caudal fin of the front-most
animal.

Working our way right, the next element of interest is the
posterior appendage. We now know it to be the posterior one, because we know
which end is which. In the original press publications of the photo both
appendages appeared as mere white dots, but here we have quite a bit more to
look at.

There actually appears to be a motion-blurred after-image of a
flipper-shaped posterior appendage in the spray, making it look for all the
world that this fountain of water was cast up by the rear appendage of the
front-most animal. What may be the edge of the appendage itself, slapping the
water, appears at the waterline. Alas this is not a great view of the appendage
itself, but it's almost incontrovertible from this that Nessie has
posterior appendages -- or at least this one does.

Moving further right
along the waterline we come to the anterior appendage. Second only to the head,
this may be the detail most improved in the Heron-Allen image. Instead of just
a white dot, we have the upper joint of a limb meeting the body at approximately
a 90 degree angle, then flexing downwards and sweeping back at a second joint
point just before dipping below the waterline. We cannot say if the termination
point of the appendage is a flipper, a webbed foot, or another form because the
end is below the waterline. The few witnesses that have reported appendages in
their sightings over the years have varied in their descriptions of flippers,
webbed feet, and even hoof-like forms.

Accounts have also varied as to
whether Nessie has both front and back appendages, but in this photo there is
clearly a back appendage of some kind tossing up water. Oddly though, whereas
the anterior limb joins the body clearly above the waterline, the joint of the
posterior appendage does not appear at all. This is a mystery. The animal (the
front one) might be twisting a bit on its longitudinal axis -- there is
considerable flexing in the body from the curvature in the waterline, a feature
also less evident in poorer quality images. The animal be turning its head
towards the animal beside it. Perhaps in the process of twisting its front half
to the left, the attachment point for the right front limb is lifted higher than
the attachment point for the posterior counterpart, which is hidden just below
the waterline at that moment.

It may be worth mentioning at this point
that aquatic amphibians, being neonatal and only completing partial
metamorphosis do not always have equally developed front and back limbs, or at
least do not always have equally developed appendages until the latter stages of
growth. In aquatic urodeles the second pair of limbs may be fully developed,
partially developed, or totally absent in members of the same species (Mackal,
1976).

It must also be mentioned that, while the left-most spray of water
appears to be created by the posterior appendage slapping the water, the same
cannot be said for the right-most flash of spray; that must be coming from the
left anterior appendage of the second or furthest animal, tossed
towards us and over the head of the nearer animal. That the two beasts are
alternating front and rear water slaps like this is in itself quite
interesting; water must be flying continuously; Hugh Gray reported considerable
splashing, which must be taken to mean ongoing splashing, not just one instance
of spray.

We end our tour of the Heron-Allen image at the right hand end,
with Nessie apparently looking right back at us. In making this discovery
Roland Watson points out that even if the eye is not an eye, even if the mouth
is not the mouth, the body of the animal clearly ends here in a blunt, conical
shape above the waterline, and it casts a definite shadow of its own on
the water. Again I recommend his
article on this, but for my part I'm fully convinced the Gray Photo is
showing us the head of Nessie.

And I'm equally certain we have been
looking at a photo of two of the animals all along. But is this mating
behavior? Social behavior? Some salamanders engage in a courtship dances when
preparing to mate that consist of rubbing sides, splashing with their limbs, and
thrashing their tails side to side. Such behavior is strikingly similar to what
Hugh Gray witnessed and photographed. This is obviously one area where we'd
like to know much more.

GRAY'S ACCOUNT VS. HIS PHOTO

At this
point I can imagine skeptics protesting the likelihood anyone could be so lucky
as to photograph a pair of Loch Ness Monsters at one go, as it's so
notoriously difficult to get photo evidence for even a single such
animal. Yet real animals often travel in pairs and small groups. Even the most
solitary creatures have to pair up on occasion if the species is to continue.
In fact the many reported sightings of multiple and varying humps are most
easily accounted for by multiple animals. If genuine, the P.A. MacNab photo
taken in 1955 is most likely a picture of two animals as well (otherwise we're
faced with a specimen over 50 feet long, which would be much less probable than
two animals of 20 or 30 feet each.)

The strongest evidence that the
creatures swim in small groups comes from the University of Birmingham
expeditions (1968-1969) and their sonar experiments headed up by Professor D.G.
Tucker. On multiple occasions, the Birmingham researchers tracked large animate
objects they estimated to be 20 feet long moving between the bottom of the Loch
and mid-water, but never any higher. Contacts included at least one pair, and
on one occasion a group or pod of what they estimated to be at least as many as
five animals moving together for an extended period. They also clocked the
diving speeds of the animals to be too great to be accounted for by
fish.

The hardest thing about accepting the Gray photo as two animals was
that Gray himself never said anything about seeing more than one. He did
however say that he never had an unobscured view due to the considerable
disturbance the animal was making in the water (Nicholas Witchell, The Loch
Ness Story, Penguin Books, 1975). Now Gray estimated the animal to be 100
yards away, and his own height from the bluff on the shoreline to be 30 feet.
Some accounts quote Gray as giving the distance as 200 yards; but he also said
it "rose out of the water not so very far from where I was"; based on his
wording I feel more inclined to trust the 100 yard quotes. Researchers visiting
the site since then have also stated the elevation to actually be 40 feet, with
F.W. Holiday even calling it 50. I think 40 is the safer estimate for us to
consider. So going with 100 yards out and 40 feet above the waterline, this
makes Gray's elevation relative to the animals a mere 8 degrees, with his view
nearly broadsides; the photo supports both those conclusions. Under these
circumstances the silhouette of the nearer animal would almost completely mask
or hide that of the second. It would have indeed been difficult for Gray to
tell it was two parallel animals.

We have the luxury of staring at an
enlarged, static photo for as long as we like, whereas Hugh Gray only had a few
minutes, and was dealing with his camera and probably looking through the view
finder while snapping his five attempted photos. Then there's all the thrashing
and spray to obscure what he was watching. Still, he says the "object of
considerable dimensions" moved about a great deal for "a few minutes", and
minutes are not seconds. So if it's a pair, they must have stayed in close
tandem for the minutes Gray watched them moving, for if they had separated by
any distance he'd have noted it was two independent objects. Unless we apply an
even simpler explanation: the second animal could have been on the surface at
the start, been caught in the photo, but then submerged. Then Gray, setting
aside his camera, continued to watch the single remaining animal for the final
minutes before it too submerged.

Let's look at the Heron-Allen image
geometrically. As stated above, Gray's line of sight was only 8 degrees above
the water level. In the diagram below I've placed two floating objects of equal
size and shape next to each other, here viewed in cross-section. Since we
already have the angle, the actual height of the objects doesn't matter at this
point, but Gray estimated the animal's height to be 3 feet above water, and so I
have indicated the same. The question is, would the camera be able to capture
any noticeable separation of the two dorsal lines, and if so, how much? We can
see here that the back or top of the nearer object would appear one foot below
the top of the further object. The actual number of feet doesn't matter, as
it's the ratio of the visible part of one animal to the visible part of the
other animal we're trying to measure, and in this case the ratio is a clear
3:1. That is, Gray's camera would capture an image, from the top down,
consisting of 1/4 rear animal, and 3/4's front animal. See the insert in the
lower right corner of the diagram, where I've rotated the whole view slightly to
make this more obvious:

This turns out to be
extremely consistent with the amount of the further animal that is visible above
the back of the closer animal in the actual Gray Photo. It's exactly what we'd
expect in the photo, given the distance, the height of the observer, and
assuming the two animals are of nearly equal size. (Personally I think the
nearest animal is the slightly larger of the two. The distance between the
apexes of the caudal fins is a bit larger than that between the front ends of
the animals, which makes the rear one slightly shorter than the other. But
given that these are moving animals with sinusoidally flexing bodies, thrashing
tails, and turning heads, it's impossible to be exact about which one may be
longest.)

That
there have been two animals present all along has an added benefit to us, as it
answers not one but two of the unexplained problems previously related to the
Gray Photo. One of the first criticisms of the picture has always been that the
body looked too "baloonish" or buoyant, and that a real animal wouldn't float
that high in the water. It only appeared this way because in the high contrast
press images, two bodies had been lumped together vertically. As soon as the
second dorsal line is recognized and drawn in for the closest animal, and the
viewer becomes aware of looking downwards at side-by-side animals, then Nessie's
proportions get a lot sleeker.

Secondly, the parapodia Holiday recognized
are no longer too low on the body to be accepted as appendages, because the
height of the body above the waterline was never what it seemed. The appendages
are right where they belong, and always have been.

THE MORPHOLOGY REVEALED

Having taken the
entire picture apart element by element earlier, it seems only fair to put it
back together in the end. The overlay I drew for the Heron-Allen image makes for
a good starting point:

One must
guess at the features below the waterline. I have ventured to assume the tail
is vertically symmetrical, thus adding a ventral fin. A laterally flexing,
keeled tail makes for a powerful swimming appendage, which seems necessary to
account for the great speed (as much as 10 knots) that's been reported for the
animals. Also, or perhaps I should say inevitably, that's the normal tail
configuration for aquatic salamanders.

The exact size and
shape of the appendages must remain conjectural. I've gone with webbed feet
here, but more flipper-like appendages are certainly possible; the posterior one
could be a true flipper even if the front limb is more of a webbed foot. Also
the true girth is conjectural as well, with the body being perhaps a bit thicker
than I've shown here.

Having recreated the front-most of the two animals,
we now give a copy of that image an open mouth to yield an otherwise identical
second animal, and lastly we place them together side by side with the further
animal one head's length ahead of the other. The final result is my recreation
of the Gray Photo as we would see the animals if we could take away the water
and fountains of spray:

As a bit
of a reality check, I made one more rendition with the glare and water sprays
manually airbrushed over the final reconstruction, to compare side by side with
the original photo. Not a perfect match, but sufficient I hope to demonstrate
that, once the water is removed and precious few blanks filled in, we have two
of the same animal present in the original Gray Photo:

Morphologically, the animal captured in the Hugh
Gray Photo doesn't look very much like a fish in my opinion, but instead bears
an exceedingly similar form to many aquatic salamanders. But those of similar
form and similar size are unknown outside the fossil record. Within the
fossil record though, they are quite well known. When it comes to living forms,
the Chinese Giant Salamander, Andrias
davidianus, is recognized as the largest amphibian in the modern world,
reaching a length of six feet. The Loch Ness Giant Salamander seems to have
that beaten by a factor of at least three, if not four or five.

This
brings us to the taxonomy of the unidentified species in Loch Ness, and the
related issue of how it came to populate the Loch in the first place. I'll
address both these items in a subsequent post article.

I knew someone would have to ask that, so
I've already put some work into a post to address exactly that. It'll be ready
and published ahead of the article on taxonomy. But one clue is: Mackal already
had the answer in mind.

Great to see another Nessie blog, I've been
following Roland Watson's blog for some time now, and found yours through a link
on his latest post. When reading Roland's analysis of the Hugh Gray photo, my
first thought was exactly yours - in fact I posted that it looked like an
axolotyl to me. But since then I've wondered - isn't the creature/s too high in
the water? - seems it would almost need to be floating/entirely above the water
line for it to be what it appears to be. Is that possible? Could an animal
maintain this with very little of its body below the water for minutes at a
time? Do we know the depth of the water where the photo was taken?
Congrats
on another well thought out and researched article.I'm still not entirely
convinced though. I lean toward an amphibious creature of some type myself, but
to say that we 'know' anything based on this photo (and Roland's daughter
spotting the 'head') is not quite right - it's still an assumption isnt it? -
dru

Thanks Dru - If I've picked the correct
promontory on the bathymetrical survey map, 64 feet right off shore, rapidy
falling to 139 feet just a little further out. Either way, plenty
deep.

Floating too high above the waterline was one of the "knocks"
against the picture for a long time. But that was taking the entire vertical
part as one animal. The second dorsal line I overlayed on the photo shaves 25%
off the height above water of each animal, which I think slims things down
considerably, leaving a larger *percentage* below the water. In my own sketch
though I may be guilty over over-slenderizing, and drawing the hind regions too
high up for the waterline in the actual photo.

This is an excellent post, and I look
forward to following this blog! I found my way here through Roland Watson's
blog, and I thought I was on the right path when I commented on his post
revealing the head in the Gray photo: "Have you ever considered that there may
be 2 creatures in the photo, one attacking the other? This would explain the
"considerable movement" Gray mentions, and the point of attack would be the area
obscured by spray and motion blur-- the "dog's head," in other words.
Unfortunately it would also mean that the face you point out would be gasping
its last." I hadn't even considered the idea that it was 2 of the same
creatures. I'm glad there are people like you and "Glasgow Boy" doing all this
research!

Thanks John, and you're correct: you beat
me to the punch with your 2 creatures comment on Roland's blog! I remember
seeing your post the same day I was writing him about the sketches I was working
up that turned into this article.

I prefer to think the animals were
doing something other than trying to kill each other -- maybe that's just the
romantic in me. Actually male salamanders do skirmish with each other when vying
for mating privileges with a nearby female, as is true of so many species of all
kinds, but at least with salamanders I'm not aware of these being more than
shoving matches, not contests to the death.

Indeed - have a look at the head of
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis
at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hellbender.jpg

If all you saw was
the head, you'd think that was a picture of a frog.
If Duncan MacDonald did
run into a 20+ foot version of that animal on his dive in 1880, who could blame
him for never diving in Loch Ness again!?

Nothing below the waterline can be visible;
at 8 degrees of elevation all anyone could possibly see is reflections of what's
*above* the water. That's just the physics of refraction I'm afraid -- to see
objects underwater one has to be all but directly over them (and have clear
water and enough light too of course). This is why I made sure to mention the
ventral part of the tail fin and the webbed feet in my sketch are conjectural,
as would be the actual girth (belly), because these things cannot be visible in
the photo, although we wish they were!

As to floating too high, are you
referring to my sketch or the photo itself? If the photo, see my reply to Dru 4
posts back. If the sketch, then see my reply to the next comment.

I appreciate another Loch Ness Monster
blog as well as the effort to stay on the logical path, but this theory on the
Gray photo takes it to the far reaches of the lunatic fringe. To now claim the
photograph shows TWO of the creatures, let alone one, when in honesty it's
nothing more than a shot of a dog and nothing less than an indecipherable mess
stretches the boundaries of rational thought beyond repair.
Clearly, the
claimed dorsal and spray areas show transparency that cannot be ignored or
explained
away. Beyond that, the alleged spray looks nothing like actual
spray would or should. However, the thing that is most incredulous is the
drawings you came up with show the supposed creatures swimming ON TOP OF OR
ABOVE THE SURFACE OF THE LOCH!! How is this possible? Your statement that
shaving a portion of the dorsal area puts the creatures further below the
surface doesn't hold water either. The fact is that as postulated the alleged
animal is still above the surface, no matter how you attempt to circumvent that
truth.
I'm a longtime believer, but I've always subscribed to the notion that
you prove monsters out of photographs which don't contain them, as opposed to
finding ways to explain monsters INTO photographs in which they simply don't
exist.

If you can have ANY
photo of Nessie at all, then you can certainly have a photo of two, unless you
believe it's been a single, solitary, non-reproducing immortal animal all this
time, which truly would be a fringe position to take.

Please go ahead and zoom in on a copy of the Heron-Allen image (from the glass lantern slide made from the original negative). Zoom in tightly on the dorsal area. Look at the pixels. Pan left and right. The texture and grain of the waves pixels *ends* where the dorsal line begins, and vice versa. Without doubt. This is difficult to do with a scan of a newsprint or book copy because the half-tone process that printed those versions introduces it's own artificial pixelation at that level, although you can still see it in even these inferior printings if they were large enough to begin with.

If that isn't enough for you, I'll draw your attention to something else: there's a complete shadow on the water on our (Gray's) side of the object, following the same contours as the dorsal line, tail, and head. Transparent objects do not leave solid shadows!

Now here is where I do err a little in my article, loosely using the term "spray" in both reference to any mist in the air AND what tossed up water has already landed on the animals back and sides. Here we need to go back to what Hugh Gray said as well (see the transcript and quotes in Witchell's book) the skin was grey *except* for where the spray was landing on it; the wet skin where the splashes landed glistened brightly. And that IS exactly what the photo is showing. Look at that posterior spray streak in particular and you will note a perfect discontinuity in the wet, shining areas at the dorsal line of the FRONT animal -- the water has been thrown up and landed at an angle relative to the viewer, not straight at you, resulting in a portion of DRY back still visible on the further animal, right behind brightly glistening wet back on the front animal. To back up a point, THIS dry spot on the back of the further animal is what forms the dark area that some people take to be the right eye of the "dog" - the "dog" that has no left eye to go with it!

Lastly, please note I have drawn no waterline at all in my sketch, so your criticism of where I located it doesn't make any sense. I'm afraid I'm only an amateur artist, and that rendition was as close as I came. I have the back more arched than in the actual photo, and I haven't placed the two animals close enough together. Also I've inadvertently got the long axis tilted a bit too clockwise, relative to the photo. Oh well, I'll have another go at it sometime. If it makes you happier, please feel free to download it, rotate the image about 10 degrees left, and draw in a waterline just above the appendages. I'm sure that will float your boat.

I have been saying since Ivan Sanderson's
revision of Ted Holiday's Great Orm theory (which I should suppose you would
call the Great Orm II theory, the amphibian rather than the invertebrate one)
that a lot of the European descriptions of several kinds of Lake Monasters (or
even dragons) specify they are talking about crocodile sized-and-shaped
salamanders, using that term specifically, and meaning especially
reaports in Ireland and in Wales. And I am one of the ones who has not
discounted the possibility that the Grey photo was of one (they must be either
narly asore or something to be that high out of the water) Hewever owing to the
measurements involved in taking this photograph being off (as I see you take
note of on this blog), the estimated length has got to be half of what
you indicate, and very likely much less.

Now you seem to have fallen into
the same trap as everybody else: Just because an unknown animal is reported
at Loch Ness does not mean ALL if the reports are of the SAME species of
animal We are not talking about the presence of any species which is confined
ONLY to Loch Ness and we are not talking about anything which necessarily lives
there REGULARLY: we are only talking about different reports which eminate out
of the one geographical area during the recent period over the last several
decades. My feeling is that there are land animals which are going into the
water together with one or two species native to the British isles but very
rare, plus an occasional vistor from the sea (or two or three-it does not matter
how many if they are all only there randomly) Because of that it is a
fundamentally flawed argument to say all of the "Loch Ness Monster" reports
describe the same thing: the giant salamanders might well be seen sometimes but
also might be something very different from the larger creatures reported in the
20, 30 or 40 foot long range. Two things anout Mackals book I suppose you'll be
mentioning: he thinks the long-necked reports could be the giant salamander
tail-end-up. In several cases this is clearly impossible And he also speaks of
all of the longer "string of buoy" sightings as being due to a standing wave
effect. I very definitely agree with him as to this last conclusion.

I
will be wanting to reprint part of your blog on my blog if possible, and I shall
be giving you full credit with a link which goes back to this blog.

Best
Wishes, Dale D.

Dale D's remarks on the scale and the siz of the salamanders. The photographer estimated the thickness of what is here presumed to be two animals together to be about two feet. That would make the individual animals about eight feet long apiece and that is probably a ent estimate of their size.

Scale Comparison: South American Giant Otter at top and diver compared to Japanese/Chinese giant salamander below. Such giant salamanders are also possibly present in the lakes associated with the Siberian Lake Monster reports recently discussed, and responsible for the "Lizardlike" and "Alligator" reports from that area. The Giant Otter fits some early descriptions of the Loch Ness Monster if the size is reduced, and the Giant otter reports are intermittent but superimposed over the ongoing "Salamander" reports. When Rupert Gould wrote his book on the Loch Ness Monster in the 1930s, talk of the "Salamander" was still strong enough that he couched his theory in terms of 'A Gigantic Long-Necked Newt'

Celtic countries of the British Isles. In more modern times, reports of the Salamanders (or Wurrums, etc) are more usually located in the areas with a Celtic heritage, although this is not necessarily always the case.

Popular Posts

In order to be fair and have more choices, there are now two Popular Posts lists: the first one is for the last 30 days and the second one is for all-time favorites. Some posts may appear on both lists temporarily.

Associated Sites

Disclaimer

In Accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, any copyright material on display here is under Fair Use without any claim of ownership or any profit accrued by the display. The Material herein is for non-profit educational or criticism puposes only. Notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 106 and 106a, the fair use of a copyrighted work including reproduction and distribution of said material as specified in that section, for purposes of education, news reporting, commentary or criticism, scholarship or research, to persons who have expressed a prior interest in receiving such material for such purposes, is NOT an infringement.